ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Clinical evaluation of a novel urinary protein competitive immunoassay in the detection of proteinuria in adults with sickle cell disease.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) affects millions of people worldwide and causes proteinuric kidney diseases. Early detection of proteinuria in patients with SCD would allow for earlier intervention, possibly limiting renal complications. Here, we report the results of a case-control, proof-of-concept study to assess the clinical performance of a novel urine protein immunoassay (UP immunoassay) for detecting small molecular weight proteins in the urine of patients with sickle disease (SCD) and healthy volunteers. Methods: This study recruited 100 patients with SCD (50 with proteinuria and 50 without) and 50 healthy controls without SCD or proteinuria. Patient demographic information and early morning urine specimens were collected. The samples were tested for proteinuria using the UP immunoassay and clinical laboratory tests for albumin and creatinine levels. Albumin: creatinine (ACR) and UP:creatinine (UPCR) ratios were calculated and compared across groups. Results: Of the 150 recruited participants, 147 completed the study. Our results demonstrated that the UPCR and ACR were substantially equivalent in the clinical detection of proteinuria across all patient groups. Despite this equivalence, the UPCR and ACR values did not correlate in the 147 patient samples tested (R Conclusion: UPCR measurement is clinically useful and equivalent to ACR measurement for detecting proteinuria across the three subject groups. The moderate correlation between the UPCR and ACR suggests that the UP immunoassay detects a collection of non-albumin proteins and peptides.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.